Post Match Warriors Beat Storm 30-22!

Game Information

Vs

01 Jan 1970 12:00
minute

Who was your MoM?


  • Total voters
    120
Anyone got a link for the post match press conference ? Amazing Matt Elliot wasn't there.

One can only imagine the emotion of achieving a personal first ( beating Bellamy ) after sixteen attempts would have been overwhelming , he will be believing that he can do it now....knock off the next hurdle......winning a finals game......winning THE finals game.

Must be one hell of a rush for a mind kunfu sort of fullah




I think there may be a lot of firsts for Elliot while he's coaching us. ;)

I know in Australia a lot of people think Elliot is a bit odd and obviously he's not our first choice but it may end up being a strange combination that works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 95 'til infinity

Danpatmac

Guest
The penalty try thing in rugby league is a joke.

I hate the incinsistency or subjectivity of it.
Surely if a player commits an illegal act in that directly stops a player scoring a try it has to be a penalty try?

Any fluffing around just makes a joke of the rule and is dumb as hell.

the simple question is, Did Locke cause a try not to be scored by kneeing a player who was trying to score?

The answer is yes.

Whether he meant to or not should be totally irrelevant.
This stupidity is magnified even further by the fact a penalty was given for the act.
That means it was an illegal act. there was no doubt at all that the players was going to score so I can't for the life of me understand why it was not given as a penalty try.
 
The penalty try thing in rugby league is a joke.

I hate the incinsistency or subjectivity of it.
Surely if a player commits an illegal act in that directly stops a player scoring a try it has to be a penalty try?

Any fluffing around just makes a joke of the rule and is dumb as hell.

the simple question is, Did Locke cause a try not to be scored by kneeing a player who was trying to score?

The answer is yes.

Whether he meant to or not should be totally irrelevant.
This stupidity is magnified even further by the fact a penalty was given for the act.
That means it was an illegal act. there was no doubt at all that the players was going to score so I can't for the life of me understand why it was not given as a penalty try.


Agreed, the inconsistencies are absurd. If the NRL were awarding a penalty try for incidents such as the Locke one, there would be dozens more awarded every season. They err on the conservative side, which is why acts like this are not punished as severely as made possible by the rulebook.

The only time you can guarantee a penalty try is when a player is cms from planting a loose ball, with no opposition player near it, when taken out from behind with obvious intent.

8 point tries are another rule rarely enforced. There are loads of high tackles, knees, sliding feet, etc committed on players in the act of scoring - but they are very rarely awarded.

Similarly, you can only guarantee an 8 point try if a player is absolutely mangled by an illegal act while planting the ball. IE, knocked out by a massive swinging arm.

NRL referees are very conservative when it comes to awarding either of these, because of how seriously they can effect the outcome of a game.

Another stupid thing is, if we were 30 ahead of the Storm I suspect a penalty try would be far more likely. Tries which are normally sent to the video ref are often just blown when they aren't a risk of impacting on the outcome of a game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay M
The penalty try thing in rugby league is a joke.

I hate the incinsistency or subjectivity of it.
Surely if a player commits an illegal act in that directly stops a player scoring a try it has to be a penalty try?

Any fluffing around just makes a joke of the rule and is dumb as hell.

the simple question is, Did Locke cause a try not to be scored by kneeing a player who was trying to score?

The answer is yes.

Whether he meant to or not should be totally irrelevant.
This stupidity is magnified even further by the fact a penalty was given for the act.
That means it was an illegal act. there was no doubt at all that the players was going to score so I can't for the life of me understand why it was not given as a penalty try.

just to clarify when you say an illegal act - does this also mean offside on the tryline? because that would lead to a multitude of penalty tries... I'm not saying I'd be against it if it kept everyone onside - just seeking clarification.
 

Danpatmac

Guest
Agreed, the inconsistencies are absurd. If the NRL were awarding a penalty try for incidents such as the Locke one, there would be dozens more awarded every season. They err on the conservative side, which is why acts like this are not punished as severely as made possible by the rulebook.

The only time you can guarantee a penalty try is when a player is cms from planting a loose ball, with no opposition player near it, when taken out from behind with obvious intent.

8 point tries are another rule rarely enforced. There are loads of high tackles, knees, sliding feet, etc committed on players in the act of scoring - but they are very rarely awarded.

Similarly, you can only guarantee an 8 point try if a player is absolutely mangled by an illegal act while planting the ball. IE, knocked out by a massive swinging arm.

NRL referees are very conservative when it comes to awarding either of these, because of how seriously they can effect the outcome of a game.

Another stupid thing is, if we were 30 ahead of the Storm I suspect a penalty try would be far more likely. Tries which are normally sent to the video ref are often just blown when they aren't a risk of impacting on the outcome of a game.


I guess this is the main point of interest for me...

Why is commiting an illegal act that STOPS a player from scoring a crucial try more acceptable in terms of 'affecting the outcome of a game' than actual calling a penalty try?
If the team trying to score would've won with that try, but were robbed of a win by an illegal act then NOT calling it a penalty try is just as massive for that team as it would be to call the penalty try.

I have never understood why calling one is considered more of a 'big call' than not calling one.
Essentially meaning that if you are leading a game then the refs aren't going to cost you that lead... sounds biased towards the leading team.


[DOUBLEPOST=1375143939][/DOUBLEPOST]
just to clarify when you say an illegal act - does this also mean offside on the tryline? because that would lead to a multitude of penalty tries... I'm not saying I'd be against it if it kept everyone onside - just seeking clarification.

being offside on the try line in itself won't stop a player scoring.
They would have to be involved in an incident that directly stops the ball being placed down for a try.

Being offside would be a step or two back down the chain of events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay M
I guess this is the main point of interest for me...

being offside on the try line in itself won't stop a player scoring.
They would have to be involved in an incident that directly stops the ball being placed down for a try.

Being offside would be a step or too back down the chain of events.

the reason I used offside as an example... there could be three people involved in a tackle, and one was offside - that would make it tough to be a penalty try... but if it was a one on one situation - then it could well have been... offside's a tough one to police with that regard...

Personally I think any foul play on the try line should be a penalty try, including high shots, knees etc. the only one I'm not sure on how it should be policed is in the case of Locke on the weekend... he was running across and O'neill did seem to dive in front of him - so not Locke's fault. I'm not too bothered as to whether it is or isn't a try though - just so long as they are consistent... in my mind - that call on Sunday was just partial payback of many that haven't gone our way ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hitman82
and pretty much the opposite was true earlier in the year when were losing the close ones - bad calls, heads go down and not playing for a full 80 minutes. Amazing what a bit of confidence in yourself, your teammates, the coach and his structures can do to a team. Especially when you consider it's still the majority of the team that fell apart big time at the end of last season, with two new established key players (Danger and TL), some new ex-Juniors players really stepping up, players in their best position, younger players coming to grips with what is required off them, and a new coach and coaching staff.

We make the Top Eight and I can't imagine too many teams wanting to play us - especially when you consider that there is still so much more improvement to happen with the team!


I wouldn't know about the start of the year. I went to my first ever Warriors game on 26th vs the Knights, and to every game since, so I only know what Mt Smart looks like when we're winning. Lucky for me I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sup42 and Hitman82
I guess this is the main point of interest for me...

Why is commiting an illegal act that STOPS a player from scoring a crucial try more acceptable in terms of 'affecting the outcome of a game' than actual calling a penalty try?
If the team trying to score would've won with that try, but were robbed of a win by an illegal act then NOT calling it a penalty try is just as massive for that team as it would be to call the penalty try.

I have never understood why calling one is considered more of a 'big call' than not calling one.
Essentially meaning that if you are leading a game then the refs aren't going to cost you that lead... sounds biased towards the leading team.


[DOUBLEPOST=1375143939][/DOUBLEPOST]

being offside on the try line in itself won't stop a player scoring.
They would have to be involved in an incident that directly stops the ball being placed down for a try.

Being offside would be a step or two back down the chain of events.


Absolutely. I feel referees are loathe to call a try when it would directly CHANGE the apparent existing outcome of the game. This is not good, but it explains their tight-arse use of penalty and 8-point tries. So yes, leading teams get an advantage.

Similar to the way people (including commentators!) bitch and moan when a penalty kick is the winning play, particularly if it wasn't a blatant and/or serious incident.

I mean, when was the last time you saw a late in the game, locked-up scoreline changed because of a penalty kick caused by an offside defensive player? People hate seeing this kind of stuff, and referees hate awarding it.

EDIT: It sucks when it goes against us, and we count ourselves lucky when it goes in our favour. Overall, I am ok with how things are. I prefer to see scoring (even moreso, winning) plays created through rugby league skill and power, not through referee decisions.
The only time I am ok with a game-changing points-play being awarded (as a neutral) is for horrendously obvious illegal acts.

But coming right back to the beginning: My personal opinion on this incident is it was not serious enough to be a penalty try, and thus should not have been awarded a penalty.

The video referee and on-field referees had to choose whether it was a serious enough illegal play to warrant a penalty try, or whether to ignore it entirely. They chose a hypocritical pathway, which leads to this debate.
 
12.jpg

I actually think the ref was right on that one. Simon said the Storm player played the ball on the 10, the player was actually a couple of metres in front of the 10 and so the Warriors were technically not back with the ref.
It was pretty clear on the replay.

looks offside to me.

yeah totally agree, i suppose you have to stay with the ref but geez wanna give the storm a bit more of a piggy back

I duplicated the arrows with the red showing how far past the ten the storm played the ball

and the yellow shows how far the ref was behind the ten
 
yeah totally agree, i suppose you have to stay with the ref but geez wanna give the storm a bit more of a piggy back

I duplicated the arrows with the red showing how far past the ten the storm played the ball

and the yellow shows how far the ref was behind the ten

View attachment 2196

Good image...

Can you draw a five mtr line between the 10s, cause I think the camera angle changes the distances between the two ten mtr lines, but the 5 mtr line should give a clear picture and confirm what your saying.
 
Finally got to catch up and watch the last six games of the warriors
we finally got a win over manly
and we SMASHED melbourne
wheres tupou is he injured
laumape is solid
and tht new prop matagi
edit and taylor he's offloading running crash balls trying to smash people on D he's been going all out